Cases 21 - 30 of 64
LEE JR v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv99808
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES LEE JR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
LEE v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv22466
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM CHARLES LEE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HURST v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv21547
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES LEE HURST
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Smeko v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2019cv00480
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Semko
Respondent:
Florida Attorney General and Secretary, Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Charles GloverIn re: Charles Glover
as 19-12760
Not Yet Classified:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
Petitioner:
In re: CHARLES LEE GLOVER
Baggett v. Quality Carriers, Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv00062
Defendant:
Quality Distribution, Inc., Quality Carriers, Inc., Charles Lee Weaver and others
Plaintiff:
Clayton Baggett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
David Reeves v. Dr. Lee
as 19-10549
Petitioner / Appellant:
DAVID REEVES
Respondent / Appellee:
DR. CHARLES LEE, Ex. Administrator
Hill v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al (Sarasota County)
as 8:2018cv01446
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Hill, Jr.
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections and Attorney General, State of Florida
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS INC v. BAHAMA BOBS COUNTRY CLUB LLC et al
as 5:2018cv00164
Plaintiff:
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS INC
Defendant:
BAHAMA BOBS COUNTRY CLUB LLC, ROBERT PEEK and CHARLES LEE POTEAT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
In re: Charles Glover
as 18-11050
Petitioner:
In re: CHARLES LEE GLOVER
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
